Trials. Jourdan Bell, PhD Extension Seth. Byrd, PhD. County Agent. John Curtis Preston, We wish

Transcription

1 2016 Texas Panhandle Cotton Variety Trials Jourdan Bell, PhD Extension and Research Agronomist Amarillo Seth Byrd, PhD Extension Cotton Agronomist Lubbock Preston Sirmon, Extension Assistant Carla Naylor, Research Associate Bronc Finch, Research Techniciann Rick Auckerman, Deaf Smith County Agent Michael Bragg, Hartley County Agent Marcel Fischbacher, Moore County Agent John Villalba, Swisher County Agent Curtis Preston, Bailey County Agent Jody Bradford, Carson County Agent Mike Jeffcoat, Gray County Agentt We wish to expresss our appreciation to the cooperators (Frank Bezner Deaf Smith County, Middlewater Farms - Hartley County, Williams Family Parmer County, Jeremy Reed Swisher County, Ryan Davis - Gray County, Tommy Cartrite - Sherman County) for providing the land, equipment and time to conduct these trials. Furthermore, we thank Dr. Jane Dever and Ms. Valerie Morgan (Texas A&M AgriLife Research) for the use of the ginning facilities and Dr. Eric Hequet (Texas Tech University Fiber and Biopolymer Research Institute) for HVI fiber quality analyses. We sincerely thank Cotton Incorporated through the Texas State Support Committee (Project TX) for supporting these trials.

2 2016 Texas Panhandle Cotton Variety Trials While variety selection is one of the most important decisions a producer makes in all cotton producing regions, cotton varietal selection inn the northern Texas Panhandle counties can be especially challenging as a result of a narrow production window between planting and harvest. The Northern Texas Panhandle cotton production is generally limited by sufficient growing degree days (GDD) to drive the maturation of long-season cotton varieties. Uniform germination and timely establishment are essential for adequate GDD accumulatio on and yieldd optimization; however, the combined effect of cool spring temperatures and a short growing season often results in reductions in early season vigor and seasonal GDDD accumulation. Commonly, early and medium maturity varieties that are better adapted too the region s short growing season are planted, but these varieties are also susceptible e to non-ideal conditions at planting resulting in poor germination and vigor. Consequen ntly, knowledge of varietal performance under Texas Panhandle environmental conditions is critical to maximize net return. Early to mid-season varieties are well positioned for this cotton region. Early and medium maturing varieties have a shorter bloom period and are generally more determinant than full season varieties. As a result, early maturing varieties are less able to recover from in-season stress; specifically severee weather that results in the need for averagee storm tolerance. The objective of this project was to evaluate the profitability of newer early- and medium- maturing cotton varietiess grown in large-plot, on-farm trials under Texas Panhandle environmental conditions and production practices. Materials and Methods Varieties were planted in a randomized complete block design with three replications at five locations. Varieties and characteristics are outlined in Table 1. The 2016 trials were located in Deaf Smith County (Hereford) with Frankk Bezner, Hartley County (Middle Water) with Middlewater Farms, Parmer County (Farwell) with the Williams Family, Sherman County (Sunray) with Tommy Cartrite, andd Swisher County (Kress) with Jeremy Reed. A sixth location was planted in Gray County (Pampa), but due to emergence issues the trial was terminated on June 29, All locations were under center pivot irrigation. All plots were eight rows by a minimum length of 500 feet and replicated three times. Agronomic practices including planting date and planting populations are outlined in Table 2 for all locations. Weed and insect control measures, if needed, and harvest aid applications were performed by cooperating producers. Plots were harvested using producer/cooperator equipment. Grab samples were taken from each plot and ginned at the Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extensionn Center at Lubbock. Resulting lint samples were submitted to the Texas Tech University Fiber and Biopolymer Research Institute for HVI fiber analysis and CCC loan values weree calculated for all locations. The Commodity Credit Corporation lint loan value was calculated using the high-volume instrument (HVI) classing information to apply either premiumm credits and/or discounts from the base loan value of $0.52/pounds for upland cotton for all varieties. Ginning costs were calculated at $2.75/ /cwt (2016 Texas Agricultural Custom Rates, ). Seed value was calculated at $200/ton. Yield and quality weree evaluated for significant 2

3 statistical differences. Statistical analyses representt the significance of the difference between varieties. A CV (coefficient of variation) describes the variability of the dataa with a target CV value of 15% or less. The LSD (least significant difference) describes the statistical difference between varieties with 95% confidence Highlights Cool temperatures and late spring precipitation prevailed through the 2016 cotton planting season. As a result, most locations were planted with good soil moisture. While soil temperatures at all locations were above 60 F at planting, cool, wet conditions slowed germination n at all locations except the Hartley County location where the sandier soil likely resulted in warmer soil temperatures andd more uniform emergence (Table 3). Due to cool, wet planting conditions, there was poor emergence at the Swisher County location planted on May 6, The trial was replanted on June 7, Cool, wet conditions coupled with low nighttime temperatures resulted in delayed earlyseason development as reflected in the growing degree days (GDDs) accumulated (Fig. 1) at all locations. Late July and early August weree marked by several weeks with daily highs that reached or exceeded 100 F causing some stress during the peak bloom period. September brought much need precipitation n and cooler temperatures; however, this also resulted in secondary regrowth at severall locations requiring aggressive plant growth regulator (PGR) management. Figure 1. Growing Degree Day (GDD60) accumulation for all locations from planting. Lint production was greatest at the Deaf Smith, Hartley and Sherman County locations for all varieties (Fig. 2). Production at Parmer County was affected by Verticillium Wilt 3

4 that resulted in premature defoliation especially for non-tolerant varieties. At the Parmer County trial, all plots were rated for defolation damage (Table 4), and the greatest yields were achieved with tolerant varieties such as Phytogen 243 and Stoneville 4747GLB2. Verticilium was also found at the Sherman County trial, but not at yield limiting levels that warranted ratings. Lint production at the Swisher County trial was affected by the late planting. Detailed yield and quality results are presented for all locations in Tables Varieties ranked by lint yield (lb/ac) and net value (return/ac) are listed in Tables 15 and 16, respectively, to evaluate yield stability. Inn the 2016 Texas Panhandle Cotton Variety trials, there was not a specific variety that topped yields at all locations; however, Deltapinee 1612B2XF, Fibermax 1320GL, NexGen 3405B2XF, and NexGen 3406B2XF all yielded above 1600 lbs/acre lint at thee Deaf Smith, Sherman and Hartley County locations where yield was not limited by disease or late planting (Fig. 2). Figure Lint yield (lbs/ac) distribution across trial sites. 4

5 Table Variety Characteristics Variety Maturity Herbicide Package Leaf Type Storm Tolerance* Plant Height Mic Vert. Deltapine 1518 B2XF Early Glyphos., Glufos., and Dicamba Light Hair 4 Medium 4.11 Deltapine 1612 B2XF Early Glyphos., Glufos., and Dicamba Light Hair 6 Medium 4.3 Stoneville 4747GLB2 Early-Med Glyphosate and Glufosinate Semi-Smooth 7 Short 4.2 Intermediate FiberMax 1320GL Very Early Glyphosate and Glufosinate Semi-Smooth 7 Short 4.2 NexGen 3517B2XF Early - Med Glyphos., Glufos., and Dicamba Smooth 6 Med - Tall 4.3 Good NexGen 3500XF Early - Med Glyphos., Glufos., and Dicamba Smooth 5 Medium 4.1 Tolrant NexGen 3406B2XF Early - Med Glyphos., Glufos., and Dicamba Semi-Smooth 7 Medium 4.5 NexGen 3405B2XF Early - Med Glyphos., Glufos., and Dicamba Semi-Smooth 5 Medium 4.5 PhytoGen 222WRF Very Early Glyphosate and Glufosinate Smooth Excellent Short 4.1 PhytoGen 243WRF Early Glyphosate and Glufosinate Semi-Smooth Very Good Short-Med 3.7 Excellent PhytoGen 333WRF Early Glyphosate and Glufosinate Hairy Very Good Med - Tall 4.5 Croplan 3226B2XF Very Early Glyphos., Glufos., and Dicamba Smooth 4 Medium 4.3 FiberMax 2011GT Early Glyphosate and Glufosinate Semi-Smooth 8 Short 3.9 Very Good FiberMax 9250GL Early Glyphosate and Glufosinate Semi-Smooth 7 Short 3.8 Very Good *Storm Tolerance (1-9): 1=Loose Boll, 9=Tight Boll from Company Variety Descriptions. Variety included at the producer's request. 5

6 Table Agronomic information by location. County Deaf-Smith Hartley Parmer Sherman Swisher Location (Nearest Town) Hereford Middlewater Farwell Sunray Kress Latitude, Longitude , , , , , Cooperator Frank Bezner Middlewater Farms Williams Tommy Cartrite Jeremy Reed Soil Type Pullman clay loam, 0 to Dallam fine sandy loam, 0 Amarillo fine sandy loam, Sherman clay loam, 0 to Pullman clay loam, 0 to 1% slope to 1% slope 0 to 1% slope 1% slope 1% slope Irrigation (inches) 6 not available not available Precipitation (inches) Growing Degree Days Air Temp. at Planting (⁰F) Soil Temp. (4") at Planting (⁰F) Previous Crop Corn Corn Terminated Wheat 2015 sorghum with spring 2016 oat cover Corn Row Spacing Planting Population Planting Date 5/9/2016 5/24/2016 5/6/2016 5/11/ Jun-2016 (Replant from 6-May-16) Harvest Date 11/27/ /14/ /16/ /14/2016 6/7/2016 Varieties Deltapine 1518 B2XF Deltapine 1518 B2XF Deltapine 1518 B2XF Deltapine 1518 B2XF ---- Deltapine 1612 B2XF Deltapine 1612 B2XF Deltapine 1612 B2XF Deltapine 1612 B2XF ---- Stoneville 4747GLB2 Stoneville 4747GLB2 Stoneville 4747GLB2 Stoneville 4747GLB2 Stoneville 4747GLB2 FiberMax 1320GL FiberMax 1320GL FiberMax 1320GL FiberMax 1320GL FiberMax 1320GL NexGen 3517B2XF NexGen 3517B2XF NexGen 3517B2XF NexGen 3517B2XF NexGen 3517B2XF NexGen 3500XF NexGen 3500XF NexGen 3500XF NexGen 3500XF NexGen 3500XF NexGen 3406B2XF NexGen 3406B2XF NexGen 3406B2XF NexGen 3406B2XF NexGen 3406B2XF NexGen 3405B2XF NexGen 3405B2XF NexGen 3405B2XF NexGen 3405B2XF NexGen 3405B2XF PhytoGen 222WRF PhytoGen 222WRF PhytoGen 222WRF PhytoGen 222WRF PhytoGen 222WRF PhytoGen 243WRF PhytoGen 243WRF PhytoGen 243WRF PhytoGen 243WRF PhytoGen 243WRF PhytoGen 333WRF PhytoGen 333WRF PhytoGen 333WRF PhytoGen 333WRF PhytoGen 333WRF Croplan 3226B2XF Croplan 3226B2XF Croplan 3226B2XF Croplan 3226B2XF Croplan 3226B2XF FiberMax 2011GT FiberMax 9250GL Variety included at the producer's request. Not enough seed for the second planting 6

7 Table 3. Four-week stand counts by location. Deaf Smith County, Hereford, TX Hartley County, Middlewater, TX Parmer County, Farwell, TX Sherman County, Sunray, TX Variety Stand Count (plants/ac) % of Planted Population (52,000 seeds/ac) Stand Count (plants/ac) % of Planted Population (55,000 seeds/ac) Stand Count (plants/ac) % of Planted Population (45,000 seeds/ac) Stand Count (plants/ac) % of Planted Population (58,000 seeds/ac) Deltapine 1518 B2XF ab* ab ed bcd 0.62 Deltapine 1612 B2XF ab ab bcd a 0.84 Stoneville 4747GLB ab ab a abc 0.70 FiberMax 1320GL b ab ef cd 0.51 NexGen 3517B2XF ab ab def abcd 0.65 NexGen 3500XF ab ab ed bcd 0.56 NexGen 3406B2XF ab ab ab abc 0.69 NexGen 3405B2XF ab ab cde bcd 0.59 PhytoGen 222WRF a ab def abc 0.70 PhytoGen 243WRF ab b def bcd 0.62 PhytoGen 333WRF a a abc ab 0.75 Croplan 3226B2XF ab ab f d 0.47 FiberMax 2011GT bcd 0.62 FiberMax 9250GL bcd 0.62 Test Average CV, % OSL < LSD Variety included at the producer's request. *Means followed by the same letter do not significantly differ using LSD (0.05) Stand Counts not taken at Swisher County 7

8 Table 4. Verticilliumm ratings at Parmer County. Variety Rating Deltapine 1518 B2XF 3.0 abc* Deltapine 1612 B2XF 2.6 abc Stoneville 4747GLB2 1.8 c FiberMax 1320GL 4.8 a NexGen 3517B2XF 2.6 abc NexGen 3500XF 1.8 c NexGen 3406B2XF 2.8 abc NexGen 3405B2XF 3.0 abc PhytoGen 222WRF 3.7 abc PhytoGen 243WRF 1.0 c PhytoGen 333WRF 4.2 ab Croplan 3226B2XF 2.0 bc Rating Score: 0= =no verticillium damage to 10=100% verticillium damage *Means followed by the same letter do not significantly differ using LSD (0.05). Figure 3. Visual differences in defoliation damage from Verticilium Wilt at the Parmer County trial between non-tolerant Croplan 3226 (left) and tolerant Phytogen 243 (right). 8

9 Table 5. Harvest results from the 2016 Deaf Smith trial (Frank Bezner Farm, Hereford, Texas). Entry Lint Seed Bur cotton Lint Seed Lint loan Lint Seed Total Ginning Seed/tech Net turnout turnout yield yield yield value value value value cost cost value % lb/acre $/lb $/acre Deltapine 1518 B2XF a Deltapine 1612 B2XF ab Stoneville 4747GLB ab FiberMax 1320GL d NexGen 3517B2XF a NexGen 3500XF a NexGen 3406B2XF ab NexGen 3405B2XF a PhytoGen 333WRF a PhytoGen 222WRF bcd PhytoGen 243WRF cd Croplan 3226B2XF abc Test average CV, % OSL < < LSD NS NS For net value/acre, means within a column with the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 probability level. LSD - least significant difference at the 0.05 level, NS - not significant Value for lint based on CCC loan value from grab samples and FBRI HVI results base loan value for upland cotton is $0.52/pound. Assumes: $2.75/cwt ginning cost. $200/ton for seed. 9

10 Table 6. HVI fiber property results from the 2016 Deaf Smith trial (Frank Bezner Farm, Hereford, Texas). Entry Micronaire Staple Uniformity Strength Elongation Leaf Rd +b Color grade units 32 nds inch % g/tex % grade reflectance yellowness color 1 color 2 Deltapine 1518 B2XF Deltapine 1612 B2XF Stoneville 4747GLB FiberMax 1320GL NexGen 3517B2XF NexGen 3500XF NexGen 3406B2XF NexGen 3405B2XF PhytoGen 333WRF PhytoGen 222WRF PhytoGen 243WRF Croplan 3226B2XF Test average CV, % OSL < LSD NS NS NS LSD - least significant difference at the 0.05 level, NS - not significant 10

11 Table 7. Harvest results from the 2016 Hartley County Trial (Middlewater Farms, Middlewater, TX, 2016). Entry Lint Seed Bur cotton Lint Seed Lint loan Lint Seed Total Ginning Seed/tech Net turnout turnout yield yield yield value value value value cost cost value % lb/acre $/lb $/acre Deltapine 1518 B2XF ef Deltapine 1612 B2XF abc Stoneville 4747GLB def FiberMax 1320GL bcde NexGen 3517B2XF f NexGen 3500XF f NexGen 3406B2XF ef NexGen 3405B2XF a PhytoGen 333WRF ab PhytoGen 222WRF abcd PhytoGen 243WRF cde Croplan 3226B2XF ef Test average CV, % OSL < LSD NS For net value/acre, means within a column with the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 probability level. LSD - least significant difference at the 0.05 level, NS - not significant < Value for lint based on CCC loan value from grab samples and FBRI HVI results base loan value for upland cotton is $0.52/pound. Assumes: $2.75/cwt ginning cost. $200/ton for seed. 11

12 Table 8. HVI fiber property results from the 2016 Hartley County Trial (Middlewater Farms, Middlewater, TX). Entry Micronaire Staple Uniformity Strength Elongation Leaf Rd +b Color grade units 32 nds inch % g/tex % grade reflectance yellowness color 1 color 2 Deltapine 1518 B2XF Deltapine 1612 B2XF Stoneville 4747GLB FiberMax 1320GL NexGen 3517B2XF NexGen 3500XF NexGen 3406B2XF NexGen 3405B2XF PhytoGen 333WRF PhytoGen 222WRF PhytoGen 243WRF Croplan 3226B2XF Test average CV, % OSL LSD NS NS NS NS NS NS NS LSD - least significant difference at the 0.05 level, indicates significance at the 0.10 level, NS - not significant 12

13 Table 9. Harvest results from the 2016 Parmer County Trial (Williams Family Farm, Farwell, Texas). Entry Lint Seed Bur cotton Lint Seed Lint loan Lint Seed Total Ginning Seed/tech Net turnout turnout yield yield yield value value value value cost cost value % lb/acre $/lb $/acre Deltapine 1518 B2XF e Deltapine 1612 B2XF bc Stoneville 4747GLB a FiberMax 1320GL bc NexGen 3517B2XF e NexGen 3500XF bc NexGen 3406B2XF cd NexGen 3405B2XF de PhytoGen 333WRF f PhytoGen 222WRF e PhytoGen 243WRF b Croplan 3226B2XF f Test average CV, % OSL < < < < < < < LSD NS NS NS For net value/acre, means within a column with the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 probability level. LSD - least significant difference at the 0.05 level, NS - not significant < Value for lint based on CCC loan value from grab samples and FBRI HVI results base loan value for upland cotton is $0.52/pound. Assumes: $2.75/cwt ginning cost. $200/ton for seed. 13

14 Table 10. HVI fiber property results from the 2016 Parmer County Trial (Williams Family Farm, Farwell, Texas). Entry Micronaire Staple Uniformity Strength Elongation Leaf Rd +b Color grade units 32 nds inch % g/tex % grade reflectance yellowness color 1 color 2 Deltapine 1518 B2XF Deltapine 1612 B2XF Stoneville 4747GLB FiberMax 1320GL NexGen 3517B2XF NexGen 3500XF NexGen 3406B2XF NexGen 3405B2XF PhytoGen 333WRF PhytoGen 222WRF PhytoGen 243WRF Croplan 3226B2XF Test average CV, % OSL < < LSD NS 1.7 NS NS NS LSD - least significant difference at the 0.05 level, NS - not significant 14

15 Table 11. Harvest results from the 2016 Sherman County trial (Tommy Cartrite Farm, Sunray, Texas). Entry Lint Seed Bur cotton Lint Seed Lint loan Lint Seed Total Ginning Seed/tech Net turnout turnout yield yield yield value value value value cost cost value % lb/acre $/lb $/acre Deltapine 1518 B2XF fg Deltapine 1612 B2XF ab Stoneville 4747GLB c FiberMax 1320GL ab NexGen 3517B2XF cde NexGen 3500XF bc NexGen 3406B2XF ab NexGen 3405B2XF bc PhytoGen 333WRF efg PhytoGen 222WRF a PhytoGen 243WRF def Croplan 3226B2XF g FiberMax 2011GT a FiberMax 9250GL cd Test average CV, % OSL < < < < < < LSD 2.2 NS For net value/acre, means within a column with the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 probability level. LSD - least significant difference at the 0.05 level, NS - not significant < Value for lint based on CCC loan value from grab samples and FBRI HVI results base loan value for upland cotton is $0.52/pound. Assumes: $2.75/cwt ginning cost. $200/ton for seed. 15

16 Table 12. HVI fiber property results from the 2016 Sherman County trial (Tommy Cartrite Farm, Sunray, Texas). Entry Micronaire Staple Uniformity Strength Elongation Leaf Rd +b Color grade units 32 nds inch % g/tex % grade reflectance yellowness color 1 color 2 Deltapine 1518 B2XF Deltapine 1612 B2XF Stoneville 4747GLB FiberMax 1320GL NexGen 3517B2XF NexGen 3500XF NexGen 3406B2XF NexGen 3405B2XF PhytoGen 333WRF PhytoGen 222WRF PhytoGen 243WRF Croplan 3226B2XF FiberMax 2011GT FiberMax 9250GL Test average CV, % OSL < < < < < < LSD LSD - least significant difference at the 0.05 level. 16

17 Table 13. Harvest results from the 2016 Swisher County Trial (Jeremy Reed Farm, Kress, TX). Entry Lint Seed Bur cotton Lint Seed Lint loan Lint Seed Total Ginning Seed/tech Net turnout turnout yield yield yield value value value value cost cost value % lb/acre $/lb $/acre Stoneville 4747GLB b FiberMax 1320GL a NexGen 3517B2XF f NexGen 3500XF c NexGen 3406B2XF bc NexGen 3405B2XF c PhytoGen 333WRF d PhytoGen 222WRF bc PhytoGen 243WRF e Croplan 3226B2XF f Test average CV, % OSL < < < < < < < LSD NS For net value/acre, means within a column with the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 probability level. LSD - least significant difference at the 0.05 level, NS - not significant < Value for lint based on CCC loan value from grab samples and FBRI HVI results base loan value for upland cotton is $0.52/pound. Assumes: $2.75/cwt ginning cost. $200/ton for seed. 17

18 Table 14. HVI fiber property results from the 2016 Swisher County Trial (Jeremy Reed Farm, Kress, TX). Entry Micronaire Staple Uniformity Strength Elongation Leaf Rd +b Color grade units 32 nds inch % g/tex % grade reflectance yellowness color 1 color 2 Stoneville 4747GLB FiberMax 1320GL NexGen 3517B2XF NexGen 3500XF NexGen 3406B2XF NexGen 3405B2XF PhytoGen 333WRF PhytoGen 222WRF PhytoGen 243WRF Croplan 3226B2XF Test average CV, % OSL LSD NS NS NS NS NS NS 1.9 NS LSD - least significant difference at the 0.05 level, NS - not significant 18

19 Table Varieties ranked by lint yield (lb/ac). Variety Deaf Smith County, Hereford, TX Rank Lint Yield (lbs/ac) Hartley County, Middlewater, TX Rank Lint Yield (lbs/ac) Parmer County, Farwell, TX Rank Lint Yield (lbs/ac) Sherman County, Sunray, TX Rank Lint Yield (lbs/ac) Deltapine 1518 B2XF Deltapine 1612 B2XF Stoneville 4747GLB FiberMax 1320GL NexGen 3517B2XF NexGen 3500XF NexGen 3406B2XF NexGen 3405B2XF PhytoGen 222WRF PhytoGen 243WRF PhytoGen 333WRF Croplan 3226B2XF Table Varieties ranked by net return ($/ac). Variety Deaf Smith County, Hereford, TX Hartley County, Middlewater, TX Parmer County, Farwell, TX Sherman County, Sunray, TX Rank Net Value Net Value Net Value Net Value Rank Rank Rank ($/ac) ($/ac) ($/ac) ($/ac) Deltapine 1518 B2XF Deltapine 1612 B2XF Stoneville 4747GLB FiberMax 1320GL NexGen 3517B2XF NexGen 3500XF NexGen 3406B2XF NexGen 3405B2XF PhytoGen 222WRF PhytoGen 243WRF PhytoGen 333WRF Croplan 3226B2XF